Steyr Mannlicher STM556 AR-15 Rifle

The most important innovation of this rifle is the quick change barrel. The barrel can be easily remove by the removing bolts that attach the gas block onto the one piece upper receiver/handguard. The STM556 is fully ambidextrous and is fitted with a Magpul stock and pistol grip.

Steyr has finally introduced a credible modern service rifle (long ago having ceded development of the Steyr AUG to the Australians). This rifle, with its premium features, looks like a strong competitor to the SIG516 and the HK416. If the rest of the world follows the USMC lead and introduces IAR-style machine guns, the STM556 with its quick change barrel will have a distinct advantage over the before-mentioned competitors.

Founder and Dictator-In-Chief of TFB. A passionate gun owner, a shooting enthusiast and totally tacti-uncool. Favorite first date location: any gun range. Steve can be contacted here.

Advertisement

Alex-mac

Funny that they are using the same steyr aug flash hider.

fcp503

Because trademark?

Polenar

Now, if they would just make it a semi-auto only with a standard thread on that barrel and sell it under 1.500€, they would won the European gun market

GolfBravo

How does the saying go; if wishes were horses than beggars would ride. So, not gonna happen amigo. Why sell at 1500 is you can sell it at 2500? As far as threading goes, that is the least of a problem, considering it’s designed to swap barrels on the fly. My concern is, accuracy with this barrel change stuff, does it hold zero well namely, since most of the rifles that came with some sort of a barrel swap feature don’t hold zero well if you remove the barrel and than re-install it. Well, these were my 2 cents on the issue, did not mean to piss on anyone’s parade tho.

mat

Losing zero to barrel change is a non issue on rifles that lock the bolt on the barrel extension

Partizan1942

European gun market?
Which European states do you think would allow people to buy this? Even at semi auto there would not be more than 3 countries on this side of the pond that would let you carry this as a civilian.

Marc

Czech Republic, Germany, Switzerland, Belgium, Austria, …
Won’t bother checking more because the point is already proven. The UK isn’t representative for firearms legislations in Europe.

Leonard

Marc is correct, the European gun market for civilians is alive andwell. It might not be as big as the American one due to legislation and a generally more gun-hostile culture, but then again many countries have a tradition of rifle clubs that is much older than the US as a nation. This leads to a market where gun ownership generally has a long tradition but is not part of society’s mainstream.
But given Europe’s population, twice that of the US, there are certainly enough civilians out there who will buy a gun like this Steyr M556. Although I think the price will definately be well over 2000 €. With HK and Oberland Arms selling their AR-15 type rifles at 2000-3000 €, why wouldn’t Steyr take the same price?

Trev

Gas block looks heavy, wonder what the specs are.

mechamaster

It’s need some open-bolt conversion kit like AUG HBAR and a barrel handle, and it’s become a perfect IAR that less from cook-off’s.

Nerolee

It’s the exactly the same as the AUG, the whole barrel assembly, the piston, flash hider and the barrel plunger assembly except it was turned 180 degrees upward, so i can guess that the bolt carrier key must have those one guide rod attached to it like the ones AUG’s return spring tube has, probably….

Tinkerer

If so, maybe they also use the recoil spring around the guide rod, like in the AUG, instead of a buffer tube? That would open the door to folding stocks.

Christian

That’s so embarrassing. As a company has a weapon. The other is around 10 to 20 years ahead, and then offer a version M16 The concept of the M16 is so outdated that one can prefer to throw stones.

Karina

This is factually wrong because of a detail you seem to be missing – the AR-15 platform is in high demand and has always been since the past few years. Try to ask yourself why; it’s because everyone and their grandmother likes the AR platform – because it works, and has always worked.

Besides, the AK platform is still used by modern armies throughout the world; again, try to ask yourself why, despite it’s even older than the AR-15/M16. Claiming a weapon platform isn’t up to today’s standards because it is a few decades old, is wrong, as has been always proven by military history. On the contrary. The AK, AR-15, G3, AUG, Mauser and so on are all platforms with decades of proven reliability. Why change a formula that works?

W

yup and there wont be a drastic change in small arms away from the M16 and AK paradigm until somebody invents a entirely new technology. pulse rifles, phase disruptors, idk.

John Doe

@W I’m not sure, I’m still hoping for caseless ammunition. While it would do away with handloading (it’s fun!), it would definitely increase reliability. That and electronic ignition are the only logical steps until something completely sci-fi.

AMX

“long ago having ceded development of the Steyr AUG to the Australians”

Where did you get that idea?

Alex-mac

Yes quite incorrect, steyr aug developed their rail friendly steyr aug A3, it turned out to be not very popular.

Very recently thales australia released the steyr aug f90 which is probably gonna be a huge hit, steyr has agreed to market it, it will replace the A3.

http://www.milgeek.co.uk Milgeek

One thing – when it comes to the UK replacing the SA80 (L85A2) at least we have a lot of choice. Well, in the Mr. Ford sort of way – ‘any colour as long as it’s black’! (Any gun as long as it’s an AR derivative.)

…At the moment the British Army veteran forums seem to favour the HK416…

Do people now consider that the Bullpup adventure was a blind alley?

(All the best guys, BTW, if you are in the Hurricane Sandy area. We are watching the news here in the UK with a lot of concern. Take care.)

M

John Doe

It stinks too, especially since the AUG is actually a great rifle. I guess people are tools when it comes to AR-15s now. Don’t get me wrong, ARs like the HK416 and LWRCs are good, but rifles like the G36 and AUG have a lot to offer.

Mike

Heh, Steyr introduced another invention nobody thought about in an AR-15 based rifle before:
Serial number on the upper receiver.

http://m4carbine.net too old for this

Yeah, what’s the deal with that?

mat

‘following USMC lead’ hahaha what have you been smoking ,rest of the world already has full auto rifles and no need for IAR ,only reason USMC introduced IAR is to get a new ‘rifle’ past the dupes in Congress

jim

Bingo. Everyone else aleady have mag fed machine guns for ever. Did you hear of the BAR, BREN, or RPK?

Bingo. Everyone else had magazine fed machine guns for ages.
Ever heared of the BAR, BREN, or RPK?
The IAR was USMC’s quick, no BS way to get a new gun. Rest of the world uses full auto rifles as well.

Icchan

Hell, I’m impressed just for someone being moderately innovative and doing an AR clone that has a different feature that ISN’T a gas piston. Been a little while…

Max

Well this IS a gas piston AR…

gunslinger

does that use a piston instead of DI?

i am guessing because of the removable barrel/gasblock.

bbmg

What a shame that the same company that developed the AUG – a rifle which was years ahead of its time – is now reduced to making slight variation of an assault rifle design that is more than half a century old.

7.62x25FTW

“If the rest of the world follows the USMC lead and introduces IAR-style machine guns”

I wish people would stop saying the UMSC started the IAR idea. Soviet Russia was the first to adopt the design with it’s RPK in the mid 50’s. Not the revolutionary idea every one in the UMSC thinks it is.

7.62x25FTW

Just saying,nothing against you Steve.

Denny

If this is about RPD then I’d say yes. As for RPK variant, they hardly qualify as MGs since they are not belt-fed. Or, has the definition changed? Maybe I need to be updated on that…

The newest contribution by Steyer is not that much ‘new'; they just smartly follow the trend. AR15 well still seem to have plenty of water in it. It surprises me that they did not utilize quick barrel change aka Stg77(although if you look at bbl breech end closely it looks like quick-lock lugs.) But the muzzle end is distinctly Steyer – one point for originality.

bbmg

The IAR is not belt fed, therefore the comparison with the RPK stands.

Im glad somebody else took the torch in highlighting the history lesson regarding IARs. I was beginning to sound like a madman.

The squad automatic weapon idea was also fulfilled by the RPD, which was the same caliber as the AK, though belt fed (like the SAW). It was largely superseded by the true IAR (as in a heavier receiver and barreled assault rifle): the aforementioned RPK.

The Soviets also fielded the PKM, which weighs 16 pounds with just the gun and integrated bipod. A far lighter weapon than western GPMGs at the time, which typically weighed over 20 lbs. Unsurprisingly, the similar weight RPD was phased out.

The Red Army was far ahead in terms of infantry and combined infantry-armor TTPs, especially during the beginning of the Cold War. I find it utterly ridiculous (because of soldiers’ lives at risk) that we are just beginning to learn these lessons in regards to designated marksmen, IARs, “light” GPMGs. etc etc.

Looks like a great idea. BUT – tell me how this doesn’t infringe on LMT’s patent on a monolithic upper receiver with the barrel held in place by a clamping device? This looks almost identical to the LMT MRP system.

FormerSFMedic

It isn’t really anything like LMT’s QCB system. Neither use a “clamping” device. This one uses the gas manifold as a mounting solution while LMT uses set screws that correspond with cutouts in the barrel.

Zach

QCB system? You mean the CQB model of the MRP? Have you even handled one? I’m very familiar with how the MRP system works from owning one. LMT’s patent, issued just a few months ago, refers to a “clamping device,” which I expect was as broad as they thought they could get away with. It was apparently broad enough that MEGA stopped making their own monolithic upper even though MEGA’s design used a conventional barrel nut while LMT’s uses a collar and split clamp with the two screws (they aren’t set screws, btw).

FormerSFMedic

I mean the QCB on the MRP CQB, MWS, LM8, L129A1, etc. I don’t know why you’re getting defensive. I’m just saying, the two mounting solutions couldn’t be more different.

The screws for the QCB system may not technically be set screws but they do the exact job of what a set screw is designed for. So you can call them what you want. I will call them set screws because that’s what they do.

As far as the “clamping device” thing, I understand what the patent says. That’s my whole point. Most of the mono uppers don’t really use a “clamping device”. Which to me, is a way out for many companies.

Steyr AUG

This rifle uses the same barrel-attachment system as the tried and true Steyr AUG that’s been around since 1977. That system allows barrel changes in less than 15 seconds.

Esh325

I don’t believe Steyr has given up on the AUG like the post suggests, but I don’t think it makes Steyr look very good when they make AR15 clones. I wonder what influenced them to make an AR15? And I’m curious as to who they primarily marketing this for.

Mike M.

Profit! Everybody and his kid brother is buying ARs. You just have to find a gimmick to sell – like interchangable barrels.

JMD

In my observation, the ones without the stupid gimmicks sell the best. BCM, DD, Colt, PSA, etc. No stupid gimmicks, and they all sell very well.

MCLMM

Cause there is a gajillion aftermarket part for the AR. It looks like Steyr took some of the better features of the AUG and put them in a package that is reasonably priced, has a strong market following, requires little or no “retraining” for the user and can hold all of the many, many parts and accessories that are out there.

Hard not to see where the decision to at least try it came from.

GreenPlease

Steyr: just figure out a way to manufacture and sell the AUG here in the U.S. for under $1,000… please. Thanks.

MCLMM

A while back there was a rumor that Vltor was working on a US made AUG. Not sure what ever happened to that?

Raven

Vltor was also supposedly working on a new production Bren 10, hasn’t been an update on its status since June 2011, and that was only frame castings. My guess is the domestic AUG (sure you’re not thinking of the MSAR series, by the way?) is in the same development hell as the Bren 10.

MCLMM

Yep, absolutely sure I am not talking about the MicroTech guns, these are the real Steyr AUGs that were made for a while under contract by Sabre, but since they screwed the pooch I was told Vltor has picked up the contract for the receivers.

I checked around and found out that Vltor did make some receivers for Steyr, can not say if they still are or not – I was told that they of course junked’em up a little with rails but that they look to be a very nice product.

Steyr AUG

Steyr Arms is currently producing the AUG/A3 SA USA with FN-made cold-hammer-forged barrels and either a Sabre or VLTOR receiver. There are no differences between the receivers other than the markings, as they are both made with Austrian tooling set up by Steyr engineers exactly to Austrian specifications. The Steyr engineers put the first production AUG/A3 with a VLTOR receiver and an FN barrel through a 20,000-round endurance test about two months ago, and there were zero failures during the two-day test. If you like rails and a longer sight radius, PJA makes a dimensionally accurate reproduction of the AUG CQC system. http://www.steyrauga3cqc.com

Riot

Follow the USMC with the IAR? Hahaha everyone knows that was just to get a new rifle past the bureaucrats and we love them for it
Besides ideas & weapons like the RPK have been around a while

Lance

Not really they are liking the BAR concept again with the IAR. The USMC will not adopt the M-27 as a rifle but prise it as a Squad light machine gun. The RPK ideas works ask a Soviet afghan war vet.

Reverend Clint

this would look cool beside my m95 straight pull

Ripley

How can it be fully ambidextrous when there is no ejection port on the left side?

The plethora of Stoner rifles presently on the market and new ones being added daily is a mystery. Market saturation? Colt and FN have the TDP and provide them to the military market. We have the excellent reverse engineered models from BCM, LMT, Noveske and Daniel Defense. There are the lower quality mforgeries from Olympic, Bushmaster, RRA, DPMS, Armalite, Stag, etc. There are the boutique versions by H&K, LWRC, POF, Barrett, LaRue, Knights Armament, Wilson, GA Precision and others. The big name outfits have joined the game like S&W, Sig, Remington, hell, even Ruger markets a Stoner clone. Now Steyr. What the hell is going on? Where is the John Moses Browning who will move the ball forward? I have a 6920 and a BCM so I am not kncking the weapon design but enough is enough already.

bbmg

Couldn’t agree more. It seems that the firearms industry at large has resigned itself to the fact that the AR platform is what an assault rifle should be, and is content with stagnating on slight variations on a theme instead of any real progress on what direction the next generation of infantry small arms should take.

-V-

Risk-vs-Reward. Look at the ACR, the SCAR, the FN2000. All offered something new and innovative to the market and while all have a niche following, from a commercial standpoint, these rifles couldn’t hold a candle to the AR15. Thus, when your end goal is to make money, you go for the lowest hanging fruit you can find – the AR15.

bbmg

It’s true that the military establishment is traditionally… traditional when it comes to letting go of their weapons, I mean f’r chrissakes the M1911 is still soldiering on… but what with technology moving forward at an exponential rate, this sort of reluctance to relinquish the old in favour of the new is no longer tenable.

http://m4carbine.net too old for this

In the firearms dance the military does take the lead. If the Stoner design was dropped for another by the US Military 20 years ago the landscape would be vastly different. Correct, the technological innovation is there, it’s just that nobody (government contracts) is biting. I see an over reliance on plastics in the designs mentioned above though. Consider that in spite of the adoption of the Beretta years ago the USMC just ordered a batch of 1911’s from Colt and many Special Ops guys opt to carry this 100+ year old design also. That would be equivalent, in years, to US troops carrying flintlock pistols into France in WWI. Same with the rifle, the M16/M4, that has been in continuous use for over half a century. Imagine the Doughboys carrying 1865 Spencer carbines into France in 1917. By comparison the Garand rifle’s service life ran for 21 years and the M14 for a mere 11 years, even though, like the 1911, it still sees limited specialized service today.

W

another FAL-style, short-stroke gas piston.

Not entirely happy to see another one of those. They’re okay, though they’re still ultimately a gas piston conversion.

Im looking for some innovation Steyr. I know its been a tough road since Glock punched you in the gut…

Psylantwolf

See- I was just thinking about this the other day! I thought to myself “Damn it all, everyone is just making AR pattern rifles nowadays. I wish something new and innovative would come out! Oh- I bet Steyr will make something awesome, as the so often make new, innovative guns!” Then no, we get an AR pattern rifle with an AUG barrel. If they wanted a quick change barrel, why not just stick with the AUG (that already has an exceptional barrel change system) and adapt it to feed off of STANAG mags? Yes, I am sure this will be an exceptional AR pattern rifle, because it is a bastardized AUG/M4 baby, and that is an improvement but- c’mon!

W

It amazes me how many ARs there are right now. I like it.

I would just like to see more companies trying different things with the AR platform rather than making ANOTHER variant of the short-stroke gas piston system (which mostly use proprietary parts); most of which are essentially factory retrofits based on a concept that was born after the Vietnam War (the Rhino system). I like the direction that PWS or Faxton Firearms have taken. Something that makes a effort to improve the platform while mitigating well-known mechanical drawbacks of other designs.

With that being said, Im not going to be too harsh on this rifle. Its barrel system is unique. Also, if anybody knows, does it take the route like the 416 did with the G36 and borrow from the Steyr AUG gas system?

Lance

Like the barrel change but in the field pointless unless you have a bench and alot of tools but I like it very new version of the AR too bad it cannot be imported here due to the 1989 import ban. Only thin I change is getting ride of the AUG flash hider for a Phantom flash hider very nice.

Karina

I believe you’re missing the point of what quick barrel change is useful for; isn’t it specifically so that you don’t need a bench and several tools to change calibers on the spot?…

Lance

On some weapons yes im just saying in a heat of a firefight you cant just have a five minute time out to swap barrels better to use what your weapons length is and adjust to it.

I still like the feature on this looks cool. And for a man who teaches classes can customize his gun for the course he teaches.

Esh325

Are there any disadvantages to having a quick change barrel on a rifle like this? Such as reliability,durability,cost,accuracy, etc?

JoeDog

If you are using it as an automatic rifle, the barrel will start to heat up, so a quick change barrel allows you to place a cool barrel on the rifle.

In other tactical situations, changing barrel length quickly can be a real plus. Current ARs can change upper receivers quickly, but an extra complete upper is heavy and bulky in the field.

Lance

No no disadvantage but it give no advantage to a Security man or Cop or even infantry its a feature that’s cool but not needed out side of specialists.

Nat saying its bad either.

Lance

I wasn’t talking about a IAR just a regular rifle and for regular personnel a barrel change wont offer a BIG advantage. Bit a a machine gun yes it be very good.

Gosh there are 10-15 manufacturers every 3 pages of Shotgun News. I think it’s more like 50!

BS

In Europe you have just few of the AR manufacturers…

Anonymoose

In Western Europe it seems like just about every company that produces assault rifles, aside from Beretta, Nexter (until they get dat license for the HK416…) and I guess BAE (I dunno if they still make SA80s or if anyone still wants to buy SA80s aside from the British MOD) now has their own piston-driven AR-15 clone (except FN which produces real, official DI M16s for now)…

Tuulos

I think there are around 7 European AR-15 manufacturers and since it can be hard to get them from USA (especially around these times when you buy most of them) it’s a lot better for us Europeans when we get to have more choices.

Basically they make rifles optimized for hunting, IPSC and similar shooting sports and pretty much for anything else you want. The guy behind these Hannu Uronen is the only Finnish USPSA Grandmaster.

jay

I think, after FN got the shaft with the SCAR, everyone realized the bigest possible customer for a new assault rifle, US military, is not going to buy anything that’s not, at least a little, American.
The AR15 platform is the link in the chain they all hope to hook the fat contract with.

John Doe

This isn’t a bad product, but I find it funny how the same company that pretty much turned the idea of a modern assault rifle on its head with the AUG just made an improved AR-15. I like this, but it’s just interesting how this worked out.

El Duderino

Huh huh…man licker…huh huh…

D

Thank goodness for an ATTRACTIVE IAR option… I for one have always felt that the HK416 was about the worst looking AR ever, and it just keeps getting uglier with every “upgrade”.

Mike Knox

Wicked integration of the AUG barrel release. But Beretta’s ARX-180 does it along with the piston, maybe Steyr should do the same.

Now imagine switching barrels for it’s SAW version..

Fredrik

Im sorry but I have to ask, but what is the difference between a assault rifle and a IAR?

Mike Knox

Their meanings. An assault rifle is a rifle that shoots an intermediate round which is scaled down from a full rifle round for controllable automatic fire. An Infantry Automatic Rifle is one that can sustain automatic fire longer than usual but maintains the accuracy of an assault rifle..

Anonymoose

IAR (Infantry Automatic Rifle) is a new term for Automatic Rifle (as in “BROWNING AUTOMATIC RIFLE,” not to be confused with the Colt “Automatic Rifle” [formerly “Armalite Rifle”]- basically the IAR is meant to be used the way we used some M16A1s, M14A1s/M15s, Johnson LMGs, and BARs as hand-carried full-auto suppression weapons rather than lugging around belt-fed M63s, M60s, and M1919A4/A6s [although some people actually did lug around and shoot M1919A4s from the hip in WWII] prior to the introduction of the M249). You wouldn’t use an M16A4 or M4 for heavy suppressive fire because they lack full-auto capability, and you can’t really “hose down” an area with just 3-round bursts and semi-auto the way you would do it with a full-auto weapon. The main problem with the IAR is that it lacks the sustained suppressive fire capabilities of a belt-fed LMG because of its 30-round mags (the USMC said they won’t get any of those super-high-cap mags like the Surefire ones, MWG drums, C-Mags, SAW-Mags, etc, and are just going to use 30-round USGI mags in the M27), so its usefulness as a SAW is less than that of even an RPK (the RPK is almost always issued with 40-round or larger mags so it can provide suppression fire longer, but we should have learned from the Soviets’ troubles with it in Afghanistan which led the Russians to develop new belt-fed 7.62x54R LMGs like the PKP, instead of replacing our Marines’ M249s with guns less effective than even the RPK-74), and the M27 has much less barrel length (and therefore less accuracy) than the RPK, AUG HBAR, or L86 (those last two have never really been used in the field as SAWs except in lame FPS games, afaik). Another major problem with the IAR is the lack of a quick change barrel, but almost all automatic rifles lack that feature too, which again limits their effectiveness in comparison with guns like the Minimi/M249 and MG4.

Fredrik

thanks Mike Knox and Anonymoose for your answers! much appreciated!

Anonymoose

No problem. Sorry if I seem a bit long-winded lately. :I

Mike

IAR…It is just away for a politically astute USMC to get the HK416 in large numbers for non-Tier 1 Operators.

Paul J

That’s not firearm innovation, this is just marketing.
Next time, an ar15 made by Izhmash with a hammer and sickle on it.

Spiff

One great advantage of the Steyr project, and the AUG, is the ability to quickly change barrels and caliber…Ever wonder why there are dozens of “AR15″ fabricators – all of which have peqularities and faults – and the Austrian Steyr 88 (AUG) has none of the problems? The Steyr AUG may appear to cost more, but when you add up the cost of your AR to get it running the way it should, you could have an AUG and no problems…
Spiff

NightbringerAT

The Steyr AUG (Stg 77) was not developed for Australia, it was developed for AUSTRIA!
Where Steyr is set, its a Township where the Company with the same name is located.
And the letters AUG stand for.. ARMEE UNIVERSAL GEWEHR, thats german,.. the language spoken in AUSTRIA.. please learn Geography.

The Version developed for Australia was in the 80ies called FA80 and was later then licensed by a local company to produce the adapted version of the standard Steyr AUG A-2.

On a sitenote, the AUG was invented because the armalite series or M-4/CAR-15/M-16 lacked of innovation and was not a modern assault rifle even back in the 70ies. It jammed far too often in every environment.
So Steyr invented the AUG to put a normal AR barrel lenght into service but with shorter overall lenght. still as reliable as normal standard rifles, accurate and using polymer for damp or arctic conditions, interchangable barrel systems with field strip time under 1 minute.

Steyr just made a M-4 look-a-like because people like the outer look and accessoires are easier to get for that platform.

The Steyr AUG system still is more modern and more modular than any M-4 version on the market. In the point of view from a modern Army, where your weapon system need to be adaptable to every combat situation.

Which the M-4 just isnt because of barrel lenght and the old gas system. (excluding the HK 416)

best regards from Austria

Don

Article does not claim the Australians invented the AUG, only that Steyr is leaving further development of the rifle to the Australians.

After the first Gulf war, reports were coming back about the AUGs shortcomings. There were also reports that the M16 was the most reliable 5.56 rifle in that conflict. Regardless of what the pundits would have us believe, troops actually using the M16 family of weapons tell us it’s very reliable, rugged and accurate

Guttenberg

Relax NightbringerAT.

Of course, the AUG was developed for the Austrian Army in the first place. Nobody has claimed otherwise! And nobody has credited Australia for inventing the AUG (though, from what I have heard, their “updates” to the original design are quite impressive)